Iranian democracy

scottdisco

rip this joint please
do you remember when Condi went to make nice with the Iranians at some summit (sideline or such, i forget) but they wouldn't deal with her thanks to her being a woman.

happy days.

(oi Padraig you cheeky knave! i see your custom user handle there :p)
 
Last edited:

scottdisco

rip this joint please
so the "democracy promotion" money Bush's regime offered back in 05 or so, was a breach of the treaty... not that they'd have given a fuck

1. How to circumvent US laws barring financial relations with Iran and get funding to groups and individuals within it.
In order to be able to move in this way, because of the sanctions that currently exist on the Government of Iran, we will have to get licenses. Now, there is already a process in place. Any NGO that wants to do work inside of Iran, any business that wants to operate inside of Iran has to apply to the Treasury Department to get what's called an OFAC license. We have agreed, in a very innovative approach with the Department of Treasury, that we here at the Department of State, in the Near East Bureau and in the Democracy Bureau will be granted umbrella licenses so that we can work directly with NGOs and fund their activities inside of Iran in a way that we have not been able to legally in the past.

ta to Craner archive (who is a long-term Iran watcher, so must be excused his emotional indigestion: it's only a bit like P bringing in Mexican examples from his own life to illustrate a point).
of course it all fell by the wayside and in the end nowt happened :slanted:

interesting things in that student Op-Ed

"The reason for this fluidity in voter preference is simple. Iran has no real political parties that can command a fixed number of predictable votes. With elections driven primarily by personality politics, Iranians are always swing voters...Anything is possible because very little in politics or social life has been made systematic."

this one kinda reminds me of that French bloke that Vim talks about (Olivier something) & his notion about the Islamization of everything actually being a secularizing force.

A final paradox is that the reformation of Islam as a mere religion is carried out not only by believers who want to secularise their religion (that is, moderate Muslims), but also by the very ones who deny any delinking of religion, state and society. To be provocative, I would say that the in-depth secularisation of Islam is being achieved by people who are denying the very concept of secularism. 'Secular' Muslims are not the actors of secularisation, because they are not involved in the process of reforming or shaping the community. The real secularists are the Islamists and neofundamentalists, because they want to bridge the gap between religion and a secularised society by exacerbating the religious dimension, over-stretching it to the extent that it cannot become a habitus by being embedded in a real culture. This over-stretching of religion, after a period of paroxysmal parousia (for example, the Islamic revolution of Iran, or any given jihad), necessarily leads to a new schism: politics is the ultimate dimension of any religious state, and the death of jihad waged out of a concrete strategy, nation or social fabric. What resurfaces is politics, in the case of Iran, but also religion as a multifaceted practice, hence the heterogeneous dimension of Islamic revivalism. redefining Islam as a 'pure' religion and leaves politics to work alone.

Islam is experiencing secularisation, but in the name of fundamentalism. It is a bit confusing for everybody, which is quite logical so far as religion is concerned and so long as God will let humans speak on his behalf. Secularisation is the unexpected but logical destiny of any mediator of a religious fundamentalism that happens to be taken seriously by a whole nation or society, from Martin Luther to Ruhollah Khomeinni.​

-- Olivier Roy, Globalized Islam

Yeah, just to reiterate, I'm not, I hope you all understand, advocating fundamentalism and/or Islamism, nor am I trying to suggest that it is a progressive force in any way (obviously, it is not). However, Islamic fundamentalism addresses itself to modernity. It separates Islam from specific cultures. And the process is directly analogous to the Christian reformation, the secularisation of the west, and the Biblical literalists who drove it -- so we have a precedent.

I thought it was an interesting observation, anyway.

Roy means 'secularisation' as in the shift from a purely religious identity to one that is more, well, secular: "the disenchantment of the world", in Weber's phrase. This implies the separation of religion from culture, i.e. religion as 'mere' religion, not dominant source of cultural norms. One secularising force within Islam today is the project of a universal Islam, namely, an Islam that is dis-embedded from specific cultures or societies. It is an Islam that is austere, yes, and not something of which I am a great fan. But by its very nature an Islam that is universal is Islam as 'mere' religion and hence secularising in effect if not intent. Cf. the Christian fundamentalists known as the Lutherans.

revolution eats its zealots kind of thing.

kudos Vim :cool:

AN "dresses like a hungover Soviet janitor"

i never said so at the time but i virtually pissed my pants with this :D
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
Ollie will be very good on the spontaneous bit.

and he is right, it was realist - technically speaking - to speak with the tone/thrust that Obama did three days after this shambles.

of course, Obama did the right thing in doing that.
(it would be good if Obama could have afforded to be more outspoken earlier, but he couldn't have and not expected a very bad reaction.)

Orwell's words about Lord Halifax and the Daily Telegraph will never stop being relevant; in this case, substitute, i suppose, say, Kissinger for 'Fax.

1. Although most sources had confirmed that there was going to be a strike today in Tehran, the city had only partially closed down its shops. Throughout the day reports kept arriving that Mousavi had not ordered the strike, however, most people continued urging protesters to comply with the strike. It seemed that there was a complete lack of coordination between the movement and its leader. This is the first time it has happened, however, and seems to be a direct result of government’s tireless efforts at trying to jam communications between protesters and their leaders.

2. There were sporadic reports of a more successful strike in parts of the Kurdish-inhabited areas of northwestern Iran. In Kurdistan province, the cities of Sanadanj and Seqqez were reported to have had half their shops closed. There were also reports from Mahabad in Western Azerbaijan province to the north of Kurdistan province. That city is also inhabited by Kurds. The main stream media has not confirmed these reports; however, sources were pretty uniform about the veracity of them. There have been unrests in Mashhad and Tabriz as well, but no solid news came out for us to investigate further.

here
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
This rewriting of history - the Bush admin wasn't neo-con enough, too many covert Kissingerians - is fucking disturbing, frankly. No explicit calls for regime change, no funds for opposition, no military threats? It was the collapse of their Iraq policy that ensured realism re Iran, not a lack of ideological mettle.

does Craner explicitly say what he thinks the reasons for their realism in later years of the Dubya regime were?

i don't think he did.
let's be fair here.
(as ever, happy to be proven wrong.)

i agree with you Cracker in terms of factors that turned them less neo-con in this area and more realist, of course. and Bush did say some fairly stirring words just before the last election, granted. (good words, quite well chosen, but for all that of course falling on deaf ears.)

i also suppose - OT but - the realism of the Iraq Study Group report the next year and the ensuing debates further polarised realists and neo-conservatives and conservatives and idealists.
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
i liked Jon Stewart's 'it's all about us' routine on about 54 seconds here on this 4m 32s Daily Show video
 
Last edited:

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Oh Good Lord, apologies. Case of extreme dyspepsia last night, I'm afaraid. :(

fair 'nuff then.

& I recognize it's an emotional issue, esp. when one has been personally involved (@ Scott's analogy w/Mexico).

still would like to hear what you - or anyone else - would have liked to seen happen/heard said? & how that would've been better than the (admitted) waffling which has been the order of the day?
 
Last edited:

crackerjack

Well-known member
does Craner explicitly say what he thinks the reasons for their realism in later years of the Dubya regime were?

No, but he did say pretty clearly there was no real difference between Obama and the probable Bush reaction. You would have seen much more rattling of sabres with Bush, more axis of evil yabber and a general ramping up of speculation about military strikes on nuke plants. Of course, it may all have been just talk, but it is, after all, Obama's talk, or lack of, that Craner's objecting to.

Anyway, stop sticking up for him. We're playing all-pile-on here.:p
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
Journalism? Not repression or violence, but... journalism???

Horrible stuff being reported on the news this evening...
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Baharestan Square

video footage - obv I can't verify when/where it was actually shot - also WARNING GRAPHIC - & fucking heartbreaking

here

& here

all very unclear but one thing I noticed - sounds like the Basij didn't use tear gas to break up demonstrators before waving in - e.g. looking to crack heads rather than do riot control.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
have to say - I'm hoping they switch over to a strike or some kind of non-confrontational tactic. it's just terrible to sit here & hear/watch people take a beating like this. even when you knew in your bones that it was coming.

it seems like the best - the only viable - option too, unless Rafsanjani or someone can cook up some kind of unlikely behind the scenes miracle.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
I hate violence yeah, but that's happening everywhere. I could look anywhere in the world and find some kind of violence going on. The first-person present tense is a different sort of travesty.

I love the era of youtube and cell phone cameras, however. They enable us to see the more atavistic aspects of what is being called "revolution"--people blindly throwing rocks and molotov cocktails, running toward nowhere and shouting, and making a gigantic mess for no apparent purpose-- more clearly.

I'm sure there are some psychotics over there just loving the chaos, and taking advantage of it to do all sorts of delightfully violent and disgusting things, knowing it's the perfect moment. Psychotics love to watch as the chaos-mess coagulates around their work.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
They enable us to see the more atavistic aspects of what is being called "revolution"--people blindly throwing rocks and molotov cocktails, running toward nowhere and shouting, and making a gigantic mess for no apparent purpose-- more clearly.

yes, riot/protest pr0n. it is appealing until you find yourself in the middle of an out of control demo & people are getting clubbed & shot with rubber bullets, once you spent some time in jail, etc. then it loses it's appeal for the most part.

I dunno either as new forms of media really let you see what's going on more "clearly" - I mean, I guess - but from experience nothing's very clear even when you're actually there while it's happening.

I'm sure there are some psychotics over there just loving the chaos, and taking advantage of it to do all sorts of delightfully violent and disgusting things, knowing it's the perfect moment. Psychotics love to watch as the chaos-mess coagulates around their work.

this is true of any moment or movement where social/cultural etc controls are temporarily relaxed or lifted. someone people just want to tip cars over, set stuff on fire etc. even in times of peace you have, unfortunately, constantly be on guard for that kind of shit - I can't count the # of times I've seen sexual predators or junkies or general ne'er-do-wells try to take advantage of, say, the openness & naivety of the anarchist subculture.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
yes, riot/protest pr0n. it is appealing until you find yourself in the middle of an out of control demo & people are getting clubbed & shot with rubber bullets, once you spent some time in jail, etc. then it loses it's appeal for the most part.

I dunno either as new forms of media really let you see what's going on more "clearly" - I mean, I guess - but from experience nothing's very clear even when you're actually there while it's happening.



this is true of any moment or movement where social/cultural etc controls are temporarily relaxed or lifted. someone people just want to tip cars over, set stuff on fire etc. even in times of peace you have, unfortunately, constantly be on guard for that kind of shit - I can't count the # of times I've seen sexual predators or junkies or general ne'er-do-wells try to take advantage of, say, the openness & naivety of the anarchist subculture.


Bingo.

I can see really crazy shit happening in terms of child abuse while all this shit is going on. During riots and such rape and abuse incidence go up, right?
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
I would imagine but I've no idea really. It depends entirely on, I'd think, on the scope/intensity of the rioting - that is, to what degree the frameworks & limits, both official & unofficial, that keep people from doing "whatever they want" have broken down. Also the conditions that were present before the rioting - if there are more desperate, angry people around who'd look to take advantage of such a situation, or at least toss a brick, rather than take pains to avoid it. & what the motivation of the riots is - food riots are likely to be much nastier than an anti-G8 demo (which can be pretty bad, tbc) b/c, again, the people are more desperate. also to what degree protesters/rioters/etc are interested/willing/able to self-police (this is more of a peacetime thing tho - i.e. how anti-authoritarian communities deal w/sexual assault). & plenty of other things I'd think.

I think also that property crimes would be/are much more likely to go up than violent crimes - a lot of violence is of course economically driven (why mug someone when you can smash a window & grab a TV?) & a portion of what isn't is motivated by personal reasons. rape, yeah, that I could definitely see going up. I mean, warzones, yeah?

if I was more learned I'd have some more formally insightful comments about group psychology & the way people - both demonstrators & cops - initiate/react to/engage in violence, how social order breaks down - why & when that is & isn't a good thing, etc etc

sorry to get OT
 
Last edited:
Top